Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Navin Sinha, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
ARUNA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No(S). 4457-4458 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10675-10676 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No(S). 4459 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11416 of 2020)
Decided on : 27-07-2021
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 – Rules 6 and 14 – Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act,1965 – Section 9A – Non-verification of caste certificate – Disqualification to hold post of President of Municipal Council – District Caste Verification Committee could not verify a caste certificate issued by a competent authority of another State under proviso to Rule 14 – But Committee cannot decline to verify a certificate issued under Rule 6(1)(a) in prescribed Form 10, validity or genuineness of which was not in issue at all – Conclusion of Committee reflects confusion in thinking of members of Committee – High Court committed serious error of record in examining claim of appellant under Rule 6(1)(c) which deals with migration for the purpose of education, employment etc. based on a caste certificate from State of origin, being ineligible in State of Maharashtra if migration was after deemed date – High Court grossly erred in failing to appreciate that appellant held a valid caste certificate from competent authority in State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with prescribed procedure, genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it – Appellant was not seeking reserved status for the purpose of education or employment – High Court arrived at a completely wrong conclusion by reason of an erroneous appreciation of facts – Order of High Court held to be unsustainable – However, elected tenure of appellant comes to an end in December, 2021 – In the meantime, respondent no.4 assumed position of President after disqualification of appellant – Present is not a fit case where Court should reinstate appellant – Relief has necessarily to be moulded to be prospective in nature, with regard to her caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in State of Maharashtra as from 22.11.2016. (Paras 9, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant assails the dismissal of her writ petition and review petition by the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the District Caste Verification Committee (Committee’) dated 22.10.2018. The Committee declined to verify the caste certificate of the appellant under the proviso to Rule 14 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (Rules). The appellant, as a consequence, stood retrospectively disqualified to hold the post of President of the Municipal Council, Kundalwadi, under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act,1965.
Findings of Court:
Validity and genuineness of the appellant’s caste certificate dated 22.11.2016 under Rule 6(1)(a) was upheld by appellate authority and the Committee. The Committee patently erred in declining to verify her caste certificate on 22.10.2018, based on a complete misconception of facts. The caste certificate of the appellant dated 22.11.2016 was issued under Rule 6(1)(a) by the competent authority of the State of Maharashtra and not by the competent authority at Hyderabad.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant assails the dismissal of her writ petition and the review petition by the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the District Caste Verification Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') dated 22.10.2018. The Committee declined to verify the caste certificate of the appellant under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The appellant, as a consequence, stood retrospectively disqualified to hold the post of President of the Municipal Council, Kundalwadi, under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act').
3. Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the acceptance of her nomination by the Returning Officer for the post of President was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No. 4 in Election Appeal No. 02 of 2016 on the ground that her caste certificate dated 22.11.2016 was invalid. The appellant, prior to filing her nomination had obtained the requisite caste certificate in Form 10 under Rule 6(1) (a) from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra. The Appellate Court upheld the validity of her caste certificate, and left the verification of the same to the Committee, where it was pending. The Committee upheld the validity of the caste certificate, but erred in holding that the certificate having been issued to a migrant from another State it could not verify it under the proviso to Rule 14. The appellant having failed to submit the verification of the caste certificate within the stipulated time, was declared disqualified retrospectively under the Act.
4. Shri Marlapalle submits that the Verification Committee erred in relying upon the proviso to Rule 14. The caste certificate of the appellant had not been issued by an authority from another State. The High Court failed to notice the certificate issued to the appellant was under Rule 6 (1) (a) in Form 10, the validity of which had been upheld both by the Appellate Court and the Committee. It erroneously opined that she could not have contested the elections on basis of a certificate issued at Hyderabad, without a fresh Caste Certificate from the State of Maharashtra notwithstanding that "Munnur Kapu" had been declared an "Other Backward Caste" in Maharashtra also on 07.12.1994.
5. Shri Rahul Chitnis and Shri T.R.B. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the State and Respondent No.4, submitted that the Appellate Court had left the verification of her caste certificate to the Committee. The Committee did not verify the same as having been issued by the authorities at Hyderabad. The appellant ought to have applied for a fresh certificate under the Rules. The retrospective disqualification of the appellant therefore merits no interference as she failed to submit her verified caste certificate within the stipulated time.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. Both, the Committee and the High Court having posed unto themselves a wrong question, arrived at an erroneous conclusion. The High Court completely misdirected itself in holding that the appellant had been issued a caste certificate under Rule 6(1)(c) and was therefore ineligible to contest in the State of Maharashtra as she was a migrant after the deemed date.
7. The father of the appellant was born in Nanded, Maharashtra but migrated to Hyderabad in or about the year 1960. The appellant was born in Hyderabad and pursuant to her marriage on 24.05.1987, she migrated from the State of Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra. She held a valid caste certificate issued to her at Hyderabad as belon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
